a) It bothers me that Grumbling undertook repairs without concluding discussions with Acme and that they paid 50% of the value of the boards in repairs without pursuing a possible settlement, which could have led to reparatory works being carried out by Acme. I would satisfy myself that Grumbling had followed any relevant pre-action protocol written into the contract between the parties but, assuming that protocol had been followed and that they had not exaggerated their claim, I would award costs to Grumbling.

b) i) As interest was not a contractual term and no presentation was made to me in respect of interest, I would award none.

b) ii) My concern here would be the time taken by Grumbling to provide details of their claim to Acme and I would find one year to be inequitable. They might have reduced their losses by responding quickly to Acme; within two months would seem reasonable. I would therefore award simple interest at 3% above base on the awarded sum of £15,000.00 for 65% of the period from the date of their claim to the date that the award was made. I would provide a 30-day period for Acme to make payment and award interest at the same rate for any period after the date that payment was due until payment was made.

b) iii) For the reasons outlined above, I would find that Grumbling had not mitigated their losses in respect of finance charges on the loan and, erring on the side of the paying party, I would award the same as for b) ii).